General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse. => R1b General => Topic started by: Mark Jost on October 11, 2009, 11:11:15 AM

I am looking at a deeper ancestry connections and I just recently found a close Gd9 in 67 match. In our GD 9 (each loci allele are single steps -1 or +1 only) there is 1 slow (393) marker, 3 medium markers: 460,607,439 (but these are the fastest 3 in the medium group) and five fast markers (456,570,458,449 & CDYb). (For deeper ancestry these three would not be even be considered along with all the fast mutators). This guy states he lives in Scotland and he has traced his ancestor going back to around 1760 [so far].

Age in years for 67 markers after removing DYS 385, DYS 395, DYS 413, DYS 425, DYS 459, DYS 464, YCA II, and CDY: 514.668 years.Corrected Age in years for 67 markers: 484.668.

In essence, five fast and three medium (remember these are the fastest) basically I consider are eight fast mutators with only one slow mutator; each with only one step mutations. All remaining markers match.

The Normans really were an incredible phenonemon. I personally think most were Frankised Gallo-Romans Latinate speakers who were then ruled by Vikings before the Frankish/Latinate culture again predominated. To me, there was little Viking about the Normans culturally by 1066, they were essentially Franks/French perhaps with a more adventurous military tradition inherited from the Vikings. Genetically I suspect the viking element was a small minority even in Normandy judging by lack of a large lasting cultural or linguistic impact. I also think the same about the Franks so I generally consider the French as overwhelmingly Gallo-Roman Latin and before that Gaulish in origin. I dont think we have enough really detailed regional studies using all the new SNPs for the different haoplogroups to be sure about that but I suspect that regardless of who the rulers were, the French are largerly descended from the prehistoric peoples of France and I dont think the bulk of the Norman population were any different in this respect.

The Normans really were an incredible phenonemon. I personally think most were Frankised Gallo-Romans Latinate speakers who were then ruled by Vikings before the Frankish/Latinate culture again predominated. To me, there was little Viking about the Normans culturally by 1066, they were essentially Franks/French perhaps with a more adventurous military tradition inherited from the Vikings. Genetically I suspect the viking element was a small minority even in Normandy judging by lack of a large lasting cultural or linguistic impact. I also think the same about the Franks so I generally consider the French as overwhelmingly Gallo-Roman Latin and before that Gaulish in origin. I dont think we have enough really detailed regional studies using all the new SNPs for the different haoplogroups to be sure about that but I suspect that regardless of who the rulers were, the French are largerly descended from the prehistoric peoples of France and I dont think the bulk of the Norman population were any different in this respect.

Yes, the Normans are a bit of an enigma. Perhaps the Gaulish origin is evidenced by their ability to integrate with others.... at least other Celtics.

This is just one point of evidence. The Norman Marcher Lords who came into the frontier of Wales, post-1066, did deals with and intermarried with the Welsh royalty. who were always fighting each other (um.. a familiar occurrence for Celtics - definitely not a Celtic "nation".)

The resulting "Cambro-Norman" families of Wales invaded Ireland c. 1170. Once again, an integration took place. So much to the point that the English royalty became concerned. The concept expressed was that these Cambro-Normans became "more Irish than the Irish themselves." Some even took Gaelic surnames to spite the authorities back in England.

They are a labeled as Anglo-Normans but I believe this was just because they spoke English. Is that right? Did they speak English or French or a blend of English and French?

Well my 23andme results are in and I just ran my Family inheritance -Advanced and I found myself in the middle of the England box and fringe in Germany, French and Norwegian. Just a smig north of PatricK Tagert. Will share to see what I mean.

Sure that would raise the Max number listed at 95% probability that the MRCA was no longer than the specified number of years or generations, which is 1380 year at 95%. I do not think its going to matter at 1380 yrs. I am not looking to match paper.

This has been bugging me, and I shouldn't be bringing this up here, these people are U106, but it is germane to the direction of the thread.

All of these people are from the Stedman surname project, there are 2364 surnames more common than this in the UK, they all spell there name in exactly the same way, and none of them have closer matches in Ysearch at 67 loci, and yet they are miles apart.

I get 930 years with:- Infinite allele mutation model is used - Average mutation rate varies: 0.0041 to 0.0041, from FTDNA derived rates - Values on the diagonal indicate number of markers tested - Probability is 95% that the TMRCA is no longer than indicated - Average generaton: 30 years

I got 570 years with:

- Infinite allele mutation model is used - Average mutation rate varies: 0.0041 to 0.0041, from FTDNA derived rates - Values on the diagonal indicate number of markers tested - Probability is 50% that the TMRCA is no longer than indicated - Average generaton: 30 years

Much as I have great respect for Ken, the dates he comes up for most of the western and central European clades of R1b are a problem to tally with the archaeological record. They imply that most western R1b people (probably nearly half the population of western Europe) shared a single common ancestor in the mid-late Bronze Age. In some countries like Ireland his dating would indicate majority population replacement at a relatively late date. That makes little sense when compared to the normal interpretation of the archaeological record.

I have an open mind though and its possible that Ken is right and the way the archaeological record is looked at is wrong but it would require a huge u-turn. Kind of like everything you have ever been taught and all the normal approaches to reasoning with the archaeological recotrd being torn up and thrown out. It would also require a reversion to the 'waves of Celts' in the late Bronze Age and Iron Age idea that has been out for about half a century due to lack of evidence. Certainly, in places like the isles, the Late Bronze Age archaeological record is one of distintively local isles cultures with some trade and contact and is not a period you would ever interpret as a period of major population change. The Iron Age in most areas of the isles is also not exactly offering a clear cut invason-like aspect. However its probably not as unlikely as the Late Bronze Age. The real shock would be the degree of population input, most people thinking it was a minor few % one but the DNA requiring (ultimatley) a major populatoin repalcement.

I suppose it is possible that the Celtic lineages (if we can interpret L21 as such) had very small beginings (and therefore low visibility in the archaeological recrod) and the real reason the count is so high in Ireland, Scotland and Wales is simply because they were cut short by the Romans and Germanics elsewhere but their hegemony lasted another 1500 years in the Celtic fringe of the isles. That is a long period for small elites that remained intact to slowly grow into large chunks of the population. The real problem is we have not for most of the isles ever found really strong evidence for the landfall and early strongholds of an invasion of continental Celts in the Late Bronze Age or Iron Age, such as forts or burials with clear;ly intrusive material. That is why most archaeologists would tend to be more comfortable with a Neolithic origin fro the bulk of y-DNA, a period where the begining and to a lesser degree end present sharp cultural changes.

So you think Ken's estimates are on the low side, I have heard a theory that mutation rates could vary between families with some having unusually unstable DNA.

An alternative could be the name was drawn from a place thus allowing people to share a name but have a common ancestor before surnames were introduced, there is a candidate village in the area called Stedham but it sounds a bit neat for my liking.

Using Tim Janzen's variance calc you can remove the odd haplotype(s) from the mix and then see if the TMRCA changes significantly. If it does then that would need more research as to why it changed that much, meaning it may be an NPE not in the main line.

Then would use McGee's .YCH data result to generate Fluxus phylogenetic network to see how everyone is connected.

That is why the faster mutations are removed in the Janzen spreadsheet when you are needed to look a little deeper into the picture. But you are correct it appears. Surnames where created from locations or Craft trade names ect.

So you think Ken's estimates are on the low side, I have heard a theory that mutation rates could vary between families with some having unusually unstable DNA.

An alternative could be the name was drawn from a place thus allowing people to share a name but have a common ancestor before surnames were introduced, there is a candidate village in the area called Stedham but it sounds a bit neat for my liking.

“Much as I have great respect for Ken, the dates he comes up for most of the western and central European clades of R1b are a problem to tally with the archaeological record. They imply that most western R1b people (probably nearly half the population of western Europe) shared a single common ancestor in the mid-late Bronze Age. In some countries like Ireland his dating would indicate majority population replacement at a relatively late date. That makes little sense when compared to the normal interpretation of the archaeological record.

I have an open mind though and its possible that Ken is right and the way the archaeological record is looked at is wrong but it would require a huge u-turn. Kind of like everything you have ever been taught and all the normal approaches to reasoning with the archaeological recotrd being torn up and thrown out. It would also require a reversion to the 'waves of Celts' in the late Bronze Age and Iron Age idea that has been out for about half a century due to lack of evidence.”

http://www.leitrim-roscommon.com/plavin/lavin.html

“The question as to when Ireland was settled by the Celts has proved difficult for archaeologists to answer precisely.”

I have a degree in History. I am not an archaeologist and will not debate archaeology with an archaeologist, but I see no problem with my research or Ken’s dates corresponding to the historical record.

Then would use McGee's .YCH data result to generate Fluxus phylogenetic network to see how everyone is connected.

I have done that a few times, once even comparing two of the most distant at 67 against the entire U106 Haplogroup project, an interesting way to use up a weekend. As I said they came back as the closest matches to each other, there wasn't even anybody else on there node.

On the last debate about marker choice and variance dating which was largely between Ken and Tim Jansen, It seemed to me that there are so many variables and choices of markers that can be made that lead to different date outcomes. The possible dates ranged from the late Bronze Age back to the early Neolithic. I think all that united them both is that they rule out a pre-Neolithic date of the sort that was popular when the Iberian Ice Age regugia idea was in fashion.

Please indulge me for a little commentary. Genetic distance and TMRCA calculations try to represent closeness in relationship. However, the statistical confidence levels are such that I think they are most appropriate for large populations (groups) where anamolies and the differences between mutation rates are "washed" out.

I'm not saying that Genetic Distance and TMRCA calculations are of no value, just that they are limited and should not be considered the final arbiter. I think matching unusual patterns of markers, aka signatures, can be more useful. Of course, you have to test deep enough to find unusual markers. Those unusual values are there somewhere in each of us. The more markers and the slower moving, the merrier. In other words, the larger and slower the signature the better.

I consider a "variety" as something more than a cluster of genealogical cousins. A variety is the descendant population from a founder with a unique haplotype and who existed thousands of years ago. The modal haplotype is a good candidate for the founder's haplotype. One's "distance" from this modal haplotype, or liklihood to be among the descendants of the founder, should not be determined by democratically adding up steps of difference at all markers. It is much more important to match on most of the key, slow-mutating markers which define the variety.

"Democratically adding up steps of difference at all markers" is basically what a Genetic Distance is.

That's a great quote. That is why someone's raw distance from a particular "modal" is not all that important. What is important is his possession of all or most of the key marker values, which need to be numerous enough to exclude most cases of random coincidence.

Thanks for all the thoughtful responses to this, it's certainly given me a lot to think about. As it happens all these people do share slow moving off modal markers, but I think I shall sit back and wait for a few more full 67s to come in now, and worry about the GDs later, we have another two who are upgrading at the moment, with a third who has promised to upgrade in November.

Well Steve, Ok here is my surprises from 23andMe. My maternal side is H11a(rare) Germany. My paternal is Germany R-L21. In addition I hava a unique Haplotype and I finding a GD9 with 67 markers (closest ever found) with a North Island Scot. Any comments???

Result:Global Similarity - I am centered in the English Rectangle box. My pin location is on the edge of French, Norwegian and German reference box.

23and me: "English - The prehistory of the United Kingdom was shaped by the advancement and retreat of ice sheets during the Ice Age, which reached its peak about 18,000 years ago. At that time the region was totally uninhabited, covered entirely by mile-thick ice sheets. But when the ice began to retreat about 15,000 years ago, the ancestors of many present-day British moved northward, ... The genetic diversity of the United Kingdom reflects the history of these post-Ice Age human expansions, as well as much more recent migrations from continental Europe.We consider the United Kingdom to refer to the present-day nation of the United Kingdom, located west of the North Sea and east of Ireland. Our database reflects the genetic diversity of the United Kingdom prior to the era of intercontinental travel that began roughly 500 years"

A GD3/67, that was Not-Publicly shared at FtDNA, has been FOUND with help of FtDNA after forwarding request for contact to the person who is the Ancestry.com family project administrator for the "STAFFORD-ROE-COOK Family"!!!

Based on guest access to family tree I have located N41593 - George (Wesley), in the FtDNA Cook surname project that shows a 6 generation MRCA.

I am requesting direct contact information for George. This is getting exciting.

Thanks Stevo for much helpful and very timely suggestions on how to followup further.

(As some know, I was adopted but, as I previously understood, my biological German father was, but with a recent 23andme full test, my genome matches the English/Scot dna with Irish and english individuals that are my closest match)

I will now say We Are related somewhere as a 106/111 match normallyindicates a genealogical relationship. Most matches at this level arerelated as 12th cousins or more recently, and over half will be 7thcousins or closer. This is well within the range of traditionalgenealogy.

I have a simple Fluxus Network drawing showing L21 subclade of M222(ignore this part) and me and my match along with a Haplotypes fromMcGee Utility chart on page 2 that can be downloaded from my GoogleDocument folder and then zoomed in to view details. (Ignore the M222 branch info - I was checking the DF23 possibility.)

Cook reports family lore of English and Scottish paternal line. They have 'been unable to trace George Cook's paternal family genealogy beyond Wesley Cook (1824-1898) in Georgia, many relatives believe their Cook family probably emigrated from England.' But I still have the GD9 with the Highlands Ross who in turn has a GD6 with Cook. And now I found a Curry in Ireland at a GD9 with both at 67. I am attempting to get Ross to 111 markers, and a possible DeWane that I just discovered but only with 37 markers but is L21.

George's account is being managed by his sister and her husband and getting any more information is nil to this point. They stated they they were intent on finding the brick wall but I am not a good option since I am lost as well. I am sure all of this is on the back burner since this first came to light two years ago and since they have had Hurrican on the coast and tornado issues in Alabama where both siblings lived.

I also ask Dr. Klyosov to look at myself and Cook along with six 1130-A-1 others in my cluster and he emailed back this analysis to me.

> Let's see what we have in this particular case.>> You and Cook differ by only 3 mutations in the first 67 markers. This gives> 3/0.12 = 25 --> 26 "conditional" generations (25 years each) between you and> Cook, that is 26x25 = 650 years (25-->26 is the calculated correction for> back mutations). If you are from the same subclade (which seemingly is the> fact), it means that your and Cook common ancestor lived 325 years ago. Only> three mutations give a huge error margin, which is understandable: 3> mutations could easily be 2 or 4, or even 1 or 5. If to employ impartial> mathematics, with all confidence it is 325+/-190 years before present.>> If we move to 111 marker haplotypes, which give more accurate results, then> there 5 mutations between you two. It gives 5/0.198 = 25 --> 26 conditional> generations between you two, that is exactly what was with 67 marker> haplotypes. It seriously improves confidence of the calculations. Formally,> 5 mutations result in 325+/-160 years bp, however, considering the> reproducibility, I would put it at about 325+/-100 years. Maybe even better,> whatever gives you comfort.>> If we take the first FOUR haplotypes, we get 17/4/0.12 = 35 -->36> generations, that is 900 years to a common ancestor.>> If we take all SEVEN haplotypes, we get 57/7/0.12 = 68 -->73 generations,> that is 1825 years to a common ancestor.>> As you see, the picture get more and more "diluted". Still, 1825 years is> much more narrow compared to about 4000 years for L21 subclade.>> Now, an important question - where are you two (with Cook) in the overall> L21 picture? The answer - your lineage arose 4375+/-400 years ago, at the> very beginning of L21 subclade. You two represent a lineage which differ by> 29.5 mutations from the base L21 111 marker haplotype. It gives 29.5/0.198 => 149 --> 175 generations, that is 4375 years from a common ancestor. So, you> two are direct descendants of Bell Beakers.>> Regards,>> Anatole Klyosov

Update:Dewane is, I believe, is now a 1130-A-1 based on his upgrade to 67 markers, matching

I just found out I have new 67 Marker - Genetic Distance - 6 match.

Mr. Juan Parick Codere

I have sent an introduction email asking for his haplo info, kit number and asked if he would send me his DYS values. No Ysearch yet.

I have inquired about this in the email, but he maybe the Juan Kodhere from the Isle of Man who switch name back to the original Koderes/Codheres/Coderes/Kodheres, the gaelic version of this anglo normand name, perhaps originating from Ireland. This was found in:http://www.kaighin.com/familyhistory/board/mac.htmPosted By: Greg KaighinDate: Wednesday, 26 January 2005, at 3:48 a.m

Looking via Gap, I can see that Juan Codere is R1b1a2a1a1b4 -L21. There is no Most Distant Ancestor data shown. But if he is from the Isle of Man then I would guess his line have been possibly there for a long time.

My Ross 155812 match is GD7 from him and I am checking with the Cook Admin on Cook GD value as he is also R1b1a2a1a1b4 -L21 as well. I hope he sends haplotype values or more.

In the first email I sent Juan I asked. 'Are you Juan y Kodhere from a post back in 2004 discussing Manx surnames?'

Got a reply and he stated: "You are right, I am the Juan y Kodhere which is on my passport issued by the Isle of Man gov but on my French passport, I had to put Codere which is another variant of the spelling of the name"

He is kit # 206731 in the Isle of Man (Manx) Y-DNA Project http://www.familytreedna.com/public/ManxYDNA/default.aspx?section=ycolorized

His haplotype is a 1130-A-1 type cluster for sure.

I sent him the link to join the L21 DNA project which he knew about and it had been suggest that he join from a Greer of the Manx DNA project.

He sent me his YDNA marker values and I added him to my own data set and ran some 67 marker networks. The last page shows the Haplotypes, off-modals and McGee's GD ect.

http://tinyurl.com/1130-A-1-67marker-N-10Fluxus

In my own speadsheet of haplotypes dataset contains a quite a few Curry's, one, Kit73430 predicted R1b1a2 that I would include within the 1130-A-1 cluster but the other are only 25 or 37 markers.

48080 WalkerBYTH7 WalkerMBWGJ Curry138007 CurryFAR4G CurrySD82F Curry

Not one is deepclade tested but some are R1b1a2 predicted as per Ysearch.

These have mostly the same off-modals, six in the first 25 and five more in next panel to 37. MBWGJ has several additional markers that are matching off-modal at DYS446=14 and 441=>14 matching 1130-A-1 cluster allele values.

With the number of Curry's, I am now checking on the Ó COMHRAIDHE: (O) Corry and Curry - Co Clare Ó Comhraidhe - (O) Curry - Co Westmeath - chiefs of Moygoish Connection. They fell out of history and I am wondering that was the start of a migration process? I have little education on the Irish history but I am learning some of the ancient history involved.

In the first email I sent Juan I asked. 'Are you Juan y Kodhere from a post back in 2004 discussing Manx surnames?'

Got a reply and he stated: "You are right, I am the Juan y Kodhere which is on my passport issued by the Isle of Man gov but on my French passport, I had to put Codere which is another variant of the spelling of the name"

He is kit # 206731 in the Isle of Man (Manx) Y-DNA Project http://www.familytreedna.com/public/ManxYDNA/default.aspx?section=ycolorized

His haplotype is a 1130-A-1 type cluster for sure.

I sent him the link to join the L21 DNA project which he knew about and it had been suggest that he join from a Greer of the Manx DNA project.

He sent me his YDNA marker values and I added him to my own data set and ran some 67 marker networks. The last page shows the Haplotypes, off-modals and McGee's GD ect.

http://tinyurl.com/1130-A-1-67marker-N-10Fluxus

In my own speadsheet of haplotypes dataset contains a quite a few Curry's, one, Kit73430 predicted R1b1a2 that I would include within the 1130-A-1 cluster but the other are only 25 or 37 markers.

48080 WalkerBYTH7 WalkerMBWGJ Curry138007 CurryFAR4G CurrySD82F Curry

Not one is deepclade tested but some are R1b1a2 predicted as per Ysearch.

These have mostly the same off-modals, six in the first 25 and five more in next panel to 37. MBWGJ has several additional markers that are matching off-modal at DYS446=14 and 441=>14 matching 1130-A-1 cluster allele values.

With the number of Curry's, I am now checking on the Ó COMHRAIDHE: (O) Corry and Curry - Co Clare Ó Comhraidhe - (O) Curry - Co Westmeath - chiefs of Moygoish Connection. They fell out of history and I am wondering that was the start of a migration process? I have little education on the Irish history but I am learning some of the ancient history involved.

Steve, do you have any thoughts?

He joined the project today. I wasn't familiar with the surname, and he didn't list a most distant y-dna ancestor, so I haven't moved him to a category yet.

Speaking of the Isle of Man, here is something that Neal Downing recently brought to my attention that I think is pretty cool:

I've seen it written and I've seen the old tape of the last native Manx speaker, but this was new. It sounds like Irish being pronounced differently except the number two... I can't figure out what he's saying and why it would be so different from the other number. Is he saying "cheese" LOL? Two in Irish is "do' (doe) and two of something is "dha" (gaw)... it just seems so strange that the number two would be so different...

I ask Juan what his ancestry background and he replied - that all his ancestors came from the Isle of Man and were of manx gaelic extraction. His ancestors were all farmers and on his father’s side were fishermen. They all had manx names and they all spoke manx. There was not a lot of movement although some came from the north of the island and some from the south west. The north was settled by Scandinavians from Norway who later mixed in with the local population.

He said Codere is a manx name (most begin with c, q or k which is the abbreviation of Mac). My interest in doing the DNA testing was to see if my family had norse connections or irish connections since the manx, as people say and write, originally came from Ireland and our gaelic is derived from middle Irish gaelic. (Bold added by me)

His name Codere comes originally from MacWater/MacWatter or possibly from MacOtter which is is now seen as Watterson, Qualtrough, Kodhere, being variations of Walter or Watter.

I was in email contact with John Creer and he told me that the text books on these Manx names postulate certain (usually Gaelic) origins for them. About 110 family names that can be considered as unique to the Isle of Man. And his experience both in the Creer Y-DNA project and now also in the Manx project so far does suggest a relatively high (20-25%) level of NPE's.

Mostly Gaelic folks there on Isle of Manx, but not sure how many people, over the last few hundreds of years, had to move off the island to secure a better life, males and females.

Juan deceided to Juan upgrade to 111 markers and he and I now have a 103/111 match which indicates a distant cousinship. I have a GD5 at 111 with Cook from the UK and a GD13/111 with Ross from Scotland.

Juan deceided to Juan upgrade to 111 markers and he and I now have a 103/111 match which indicates a distant cousinship. I have a GD5 at 111 with Cook from the UK and a GD13/111 with Ross from Scotland.

Is it possible, or maybe even probable that the bulk of y-dna on the Island of Man was replaced by large by the Norse?

I doubt that is the case, especially with regard to L21.

If that did happen, it would be really difficult to detect in the case of L21, since the Irish Sea is already an L21 lake of mostly local origin.

I think it more likely that Manx L21 is Celtic and local and not Viking.

it seems odd to me that the Norse were in Isle of Man, Dublin, and the Herbrides..yet why would they only inhabit the north of Man? I would think the Norse had full control. There have been finds of Norse treasure found even in N/W England to the east of Man. It is my thought that the Norse were in greater numbers in Man than some speculate. I suspect L21 played a large roll. Though this is only my thoughts.http://search.avg.com/?d=4d88da00&i=23&tp=chrome&q=n%2Fw+england+viking+hoard&lng=en-us&nt=1

Juan deceided to Juan upgrade to 111 markers and he and I now have a 103/111 match which indicates a distant cousinship. I have a GD5 at 111 with Cook from the UK and a GD13/111 with Ross from Scotland.

I have a 17 member 67 marker cluster that is very Irish based back to a Curry (O'Curry = Ó COMHRAIDHE - North Munster connections? and four more Curry's with 25 or 37 markers) TMRCA at 1,200 ybp, further back with Harley (O'Hurley), Dewane and McCauley at 1,650 ybp and then 1,750 for Appleby, Stewart and Mitchell.

The more recent Scottish, English, Isle of Man matches and what ever I am, is about 600 ybp at 111 markers. Leaving out the Scot, the ybp is around 375 and my closest match is around 280. I have a almost a 1000 matches on 23andme which is generally requarded as a Early Colonial based ancestry which makes sense with my closest English match.

So in discussions with several other knowledgeable guys I was asking for a cluster name, and Paul D mentioned people would say that "Ulster Irish" would be closest to Scottish Gàidhlig (Gaelic) on phonology/some vocab, whereas Munster would be further apart (opposite sides of a dialect chain). However there are some phonological features found in Munster and in Scotland which aren't found in either Connacht or Ulster Irish! My Isle of Mann match Galic is Middle (age) Irish with Scotland and Munster something to connect with Conaire Mór in the clade name might be appropriate.

With regards to Ó COMHRAIDHE, Paul D said Woulfe mentions one group been of the Dál gCais (Thomond) this on face value would point towards L226. Another group is connected to the "Corcu Laoidhe" which were based in Cork and generally regarded as been very old in ancestry.

With regards to Westmeath these are members of "Uí Mac Uais Mide" who are supposedly of "Clan Colla" been descended from "Colla Uais" and been a branch of the Airghialla. In this case they were in Meath (Midhe -> Mí) Midhe was both a province and also a subkingdom within the province. The "subkingdom" mapped to basically what is now Westmeath, whereas ironically the territory that now occupied by modern county of Meath was the "subkingdom" of Brega (the heights).

Another source I asked to give me a name for my cluster origins, Paul C suggested I could go with names like Érainn, Belgae or Fir Bolg. If you want to give it an Irish sounding name, I'd go with "Fir Bolg" (literally "men of Bolg" or "Bolg men"), now he also commented on R-M222 that Bolg=stomach in Irish Gaelic, but it also means "Bellows", as this is the more likely meaning. So rather than Big Bellied men invading, you had Iron wielding men, who used magic bellows to forge their strong swords.

He also thinks that R-M222 may be linked to the arrival of the Belgae, and that they did not speak a different dialect of Celtic, rather they spoke an Iron Age Germanic language - In Irish Gaelic when we talk about the English language we call it Béarla, the word for Iron is iarann, and so the language they spoke was Iron Age English/Germanic. He literally thinks that Ireland's name evolved from the word Iron (iarann), and was called after the Iron Age Celts who came here, called Érainn.

He thinks that there may have been more than one entry of Belgae type people to Ireland and Britain, first as Belgae, later as Normans.

I (me) realize that the Iron age allowed those with the new tools to dominate where ever they travel or migrated.

Here is a PDF link that shows the charts in an orginal format. Just download and right click the pdf to rotate and then Zoom in. I have more Hts that are 37 and 25 mostly Isle's surnames with more Curry's and a few more Scot's and English based.

So if anyone has looked at the data, is there something else I can correlate? I really feel the movement from Ireland to Scotland and Isle of Man and some how from Man to South of Scotland in West England or Wales is the strongest route based on variation of Gaelic.

I need more matches but I feel the Virgina/TN Colonial Connections within the past 200-300 yrs could be Scottish or England based Autosome cousins is the cement. I also have a fourth cousin from Wales who is a first generation here in the USA from WW2 time period who has her grandparents solid Wales and England.